Skip to main content
Known Participant
April 5, 2024
Answered

Illustrator AI

  • April 5, 2024
  • 4 replies
  • 5409 views

I have been looking at the AI generated results because I am a professional designer who pays a lot for my monthly subscription and am appauled at how bad the results are. Is adobe trying to destroy the creative industry by using sub standard functions in to their applications. Not only do some of the results have no resemblance to what actual subjects look like, but the amount of extra anchor points and bad joins would take a designer a couple of hours to go through and fix. Please adobe, look at what you are producing, the cost is too high, Photoshop generative fill is very poor resolution too and you can easily see the join from where the AI has badly done its job. None of the AI features are of any use to a print designer, as print is so unforgiving and the wuality just isn't there. And before a community expert says can you post some examples, I am not wasting my time screengrabbing things that you are all aware of and are ignoring already. AI is not fit for purpose, please stop now!

Correct answer Bobby Henderson

I agree with everything you have said. I do think that adobe have made a mistake by adopting AI functions and I don't want to see or use them, adobe have again put the prices up this year when they are including AI that is not fit for purpose and talented creatives don't need AI. My initial post was complaining about the poor quality of the AI results, and the only reason I used it was to see for myself how bad it was, I have no intention of using those features moving forward.


Unfortunately the business world is going gaga over "AI." So I think Adobe has no choice but to take part in this "race" -even if the race could really be about race to the bottom economics. One of the main reasons why business people are so infatuated with "AI" is its potential to eliminate employees. They won't phrase the goal like that. They beat around the bush using terms like "creating efficiencies." Whether it's automated machinery or a software bot that duplicates office worker tasks or even a bot that writes code the whole thing is about boosting profits by cutting staff.

 

Too many of these business people think job cuts happen in a vacuum. They don't look at the bigger picture effect. Everyone of these companies is trying to sell product to someone else. In order for the consumer to be able to buy anything that consumer has to be gainfully employed, earning a big enough paycheck to have discretionary income left over after basic expenses to be able to buy stuff. If enough humans get their jobs down-sized, out-sourced or just plain eliminated it tanks the rest of the economy. Math is math. There is no getting around that.

 

As for Adobe raising prices, I think that's a result of prices going up on everything. Heck, I get angry most times I visit the grocery store. The only bright side I see to high food prices is it makes it easier for me not to buy certain junk foods, like potato chips. Adobe's headquarters is in San Jose, a city whose living costs are outrageously extreme. I don't even understand how service industry workers can survive in that region. They're not paying fry cooks at In-N-Out Burger $50 per hour.

4 replies

Participant
May 5, 2025

I’m fascinated by how poorly this feature performs. Many people seem to reject AI’s involvement in creative content creation software entirely, and I don’t quite understand why. AI-generated content is largely ineffective at the moment, so the hostility toward it feels excessive.

Even the simplest concepts are misunderstood by the engine, leading to random, often useless outputs. But it’s not just about the results - the entire AI-driven creative process is flawed. Imagine having an employee on your phone whom you can only communicate with via voice - no screen sharing, no visual references. On top of that, you can never build on previous conversations; instead, you must refine your initial text repeatedly in hopes of getting a better outcome. No one would tolerate such an inefficient workflow in real life.


Bobby Henderson -> "..with "AI" is its potential to eliminate employees": This is a process mankind follows for thousands of years. I do not longer call someone to connect me to another person via telephone: A computer does that for me. Hundreds of examples could be added..

Participant
May 5, 2025

If it's normal to expect jobs to be eliminated and artists are next in line why would any of us continue to buy adobe products? More importantly HOW would any of us be expected to pay for them? Adobe seem determined to eradicate their own customers.

Participant
March 17, 2025

I am infuriated on a daily basis that Illustrator prompts me to try generative AI while I'm working. Adobe has complete disdain for their userbase. I do not want to use the stolen work of other illustrators to do my illustrations for me. That's not why I pay for this software.  

Monika Gause
Community Expert
Community Expert
March 17, 2025

Are you referring to the contextual menu bar? You can turn it off in the Window menu.

 

If you want to bring the message to the Illustrator engineers, please post there: https://illustrator.uservoice.com 

This here is the community forum. 95% of participants aren't even staff.

Monika Gause
Community Expert
Community Expert
April 5, 2024

Generative AI is inherently pixel based. So the results need to be autotraced. In Autotracing you get what you get.

 

Autotracing is not intellegent enough to recognize geometric shapes. And it doesn't look like that would be happening anytime soon. 

Known Participant
April 5, 2024

Thanks, I guess the problem I have is that if its not fit for purpose then it shouldn't be included in the application or applications. AI is an absolute joke quality wise and I wish Adobe would recognise that and stop putting the prices up for a product that is not up to scratch. Either Adobe should make it work or take it off the applications, or reduce the price of the subscription to compensate for the poor results. 

Monika Gause
Community Expert
Community Expert
April 5, 2024

Illustrator has got a lot of other features apart from generative AI. And contrary to e.g. InDesign it also gets new ones quite often.

Doug A Roberts
Community Expert
Community Expert
April 5, 2024

Like most current AI applications, it works for situations where sloppy construction is good enough. That's a fairly large subset of consumer use cases. If you need precise work, it isn't for you.

Known Participant
April 5, 2024

Thanks for taking the time to reply, as you say sloppy construction, and I think thats what is bothering me. Why are Adobe charging a premium when its applications produce sloppy construction. The trouble is that people who aren't aware of how bad the results are will be making designers work for less money because they think things take less time, they will view illustration work as a couple of minute job, adobe are hurting the creative industry with AI. What is the point of a badly produced illustration or icon or logo when you have super talented illustrators and graphic designers who are producing amazing work.

Known Participant
April 5, 2024

I think this is an AI problem, not specifically an Adobe problem. My opinion is that people generally will become accustomed to sloppier work because an AI can do it quickly. Perhaps they already are.


Adobe have put the prices up as they say that the new features justify that. Adobe are using AI in its applications, so yes it is an Adobe problem. Adobe have chosen to use AI and have put the prices up. When I open photoshop or illustrator it is adobe software I am using and paying for, so it is absolutely an Adobe problem, they have made it their problem by adopting it and putting the prices up to include it. If Adobe knew that the results were poor, then why include them in their products.